_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M103 Build blog
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 06:45 AM UTC
Hello everyone,

Well, all major construction is complete. PE is on. All that this kit needs is some paint. So I guess that does it for this build.

Speaking of the PE parts, in the instructions they are labeled "MA".
When doing the rear deck for the gun cradle if your going to do it in the stored position, or in the assembled position like I've, take care installing MA5, MA8. MA4 and MA7 go with MA8 and MA5. MA4 is very tiny and if you lose it to the carpet monster, well, good luck with that. MA7 is a bit larger, but you'll still have a hard time finding it if it is dropped.

Note here is that there are x2 MA5's to install. I've missed one which you'll see in the photo's below and its in the wrong position, this should placed higher up. Builder error on that one.




Now, on to the .50 cal., M2HB install. This is Step 13. Note the "after thought" window box, showing part J17, the M2HB. Note the blue areas to be removed.
These parts are for when the M2HB is placed on the tripod and are not needed.
Take care in removing them and make sure you remove the tripod pintle so it is level with the bottom of receiver.

The pintle and cradle set up seem to be the D80030 (6580030) mount. Source link is below:
http://www.usarmymodels.com/ARTICLES/MG%20Mounts/MGmounts%20page%208%20D80030.html

After you remove the pintle, you'll have to make sure it fits nicely into the front notch on the PE cradle or the M2 will sit funny and the rear will not line up with the rest of the cradle.



Note: What wrong with the photo above? Ummm, Part J23 is not sitting right, simple fix, give it a small shave. (See photo below.)



Now we fit just fine.
For you M2HB guys, note here also, Dragon has put the charge handle onto the receiver cover, part J23. So if that is something you what to correct, add an aftermarket M2HB.



So here it is, naked as a jaybird.





















Thanks to Staff_Jim and CMOT for the chance to build this kit. I'm very humbled.

Final thoughts on the kit:

Overall, this is not a bad kit out of the box. Sure it has had its hiccups and needed a bit of hacking on the rear deck exhaust to make the turret clear and turn, but other then that, its a good kit.

Easy to build, instruction are typical Dragon, some areas easy to follow, some areas are not.

Part sprues are clean, little to no flashing. However, you'll have a lot of leftovers after the build.

Tracks are easy to assemble, no melting them together, just glue them together.

Wow, this is a long post. I'll continue after this little break.

Till then.......See ya in the funnies..........
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 07:13 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hello everyone.

Pawel,

I've find this that you might be interested in.

www.preservedtanks.com/Types.aspx?TypeCategoryId=1870

It states there is an M103A1 at Ft. Polk, however I've not been able to confirm or deny this.
I plan to place a phone call when I can to see if this information is correct.

See ya in the funnies................

I'm a bit sceptical as there seem to be no photos of this tank published anywhere. One would expect that the only surviving M103A1 would attract more attention.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 07:23 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Pawel

How are your mods coming along? Looking forward to seeing the results.

Chuck

The hull is done. Detailing the turret now.
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 08:22 AM UTC
Hello Pawel,

True, I do agree.

Will see what comes out of the phone call. Left a message. Hope they return the call. LOL.

See ya in the funnies...............
pespada
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: June 13, 2014
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 01:31 PM UTC
Well...deal with Cookie...
I'm just bringing the information I saw in Cookie's article. He did not date the photos. He made the suggestion to make the additions. Not me.
In the meantime, to get more education on this tank, I purchased the Osprey/New Vanguard book on the M103 "M103 Heavy Tank, 1950-1974."
In the discussion concerning the development and delivery of the 300 tanks over its production run (pg 21 to 25), the book states there were so many production conferences meeting on average every four months, requiring so many changes and modifications; on that basis who is to say what is the "definititive" M103 tank, shape-wise? They weren't specific about the changes, but I could imagine that they weren't limited to internal changes alone, and we are talking about dozens and dozens of changes. A tweak on one and a tweak on another, and I could imagine each and every one of the 300 M103s being just a little different.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 11:35 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Well...deal with Cookie...
I'm just bringing the information I saw in Cookie's article. He did not date the photos. He made the suggestion to make the additions. Not me.
In the meantime, to get more education on this tank, I purchased the Osprey/New Vanguard book on the M103 "M103 Heavy Tank, 1950-1974."
In the discussion concerning the development and delivery of the 300 tanks over its production run (pg 21 to 25), the book states there were so many production conferences meeting on average every four months, requiring so many changes and modifications; on that basis who is to say what is the "definititive" M103 tank, shape-wise? They weren't specific about the changes, but I could imagine that they weren't limited to internal changes alone, and we are talking about dozens and dozens of changes. A tweak on one and a tweak on another, and I could imagine each and every one of the 300 M103s being just a little different.

True, there were certainly many small detail changes, but this specific detail: machine gun travel lock, only worked with the early commander's cupola. It was physically not possible to use it once the new cupola with simplified MG mount was installed in M103A1, so it was eliminated. It is possible that some early tank upgraded to A1 standard retained that part, but it certainly was not a typical feature for M103A1 variant.
I know that you only quoted what Cookie wrote, but I would like to provide the correct information to people reading this thread.
pespada
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: June 13, 2014
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 60 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 01:47 AM UTC
Well, then, I'll leave the travel lock off when I build my M103. Less scratchbuilding I have to do.
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 02:33 AM UTC
I couldn't tell from your shots if there is much molded on detail on the hull. Looks like more than on previous releases. Are all the armored fuel covers molded on? The engine grill openings are molded solid - should they look like that? The relief looks like it could have been a bit deeper.
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 03:43 AM UTC
Hey Biggles2,

The left and right caps behind the turret are not molded into the deck. Those are separate and are labeled D19, D20, and go with part A1. (See photo below.)



Here's a shot of Part A1 on the sprue.



Here a shot of the rear deck. Note the grill openings are molded into the part.







Now if you want to take the time and remove all that....

HTH

See ya in the funnies..............
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 04:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text

on that basis who is to say what is the "definititive" M103 tank, shape-wise? They weren't specific about the changes, but I could imagine that they weren't limited to internal changes alone, and we are talking about dozens and dozens of changes. A tweak on one and a tweak on another, and I could imagine each and every one of the 300 M103s being just a little different.


There might have been some component and stowage changes between units as the batches progressed through the production lines, but the fundamental shapes of the turret and hull were not "tweaked" in later variants. The only substantive shape change was the addition of the gunner's sight bulge between the 103 and the 103A1 and the concurrent deletion of sight infrastructure on the removable turret roof panel. All the other changes to the shape were minor due to the addition and deletion of added components.

The inverted V in the turret was there from day one, as was the shape of the turret bustle, the width of the gun mount and the shape of the nose, in fact all these features are found on the T43 test vehicles. Given that all of the vehicles were built as 103s and then subsequently modified to the A1 and A2 standards, fundamental shape changes could not have happened after the parts were made for the basic 103 production run.

The last shape changes were due to the change in engine from the A1 to the A2 using the new IR supressing engine deck from the M60 series. Even then, there were no changes to the shape of the cast parts, just new engine deck components welded and bolted in place.

I don't mean to get all pedantic and you can do what you want with your own models, but to suggest that because many meetings were held regarding small design changes that this infers that the basic vehicle shape can change all over the place for any unit you want to build is simply not correct. It does not take into account that changes to casting shapes generally mean a large amount of work done to the tooling to make the castings and to the engineering infrastructure to instruct and inspect the castings. It also means a break in production while the tools are modified to incorporate the change. It doesn't happen easily or quickly and is never done on a onesie - twosie unit basis. If you do it at all, you do it in large batches to justify all the work it entails and it better be a big enough change to warrent all that work.

There were only 300 of these things built and even fewer converted to the later variants. There was little scope or production duration to make significant changes and if there were significant changes in shape, there would be photos that show it. And there aren't.

Paul
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 06:43 AM UTC
Hey gang,

Got a call back from Ft. Polk and they did have one...15 years ago and was told it was with the 2nd ACR. Where it is now, they're not sure. Was given some other numbers to call. Hope these pan out.

The hunt is on...........

See ya in the funnies....................
BootsDMS
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 08:49 AM UTC
Brian,

This has been a most useful build; many, many thanks.

I look very forward now to tackling mine.

Regards,

Brian Stoddart
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 10:59 AM UTC
Think I'll wait a bit and see if Hobby Boss, Trumpeter, or Bronco do one.
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 05:49 PM UTC
Brian,

Thank mate.

Biggles2,

Umm, you might be waiting a while.
It's my opinion that the other's, i.e., Trump, Bronco, or Hobby Boss, are watching the market and reviews to see how this unfolds with the Dragon offering before doing their versions.
Heck, we have more photo's of the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot then we do of the M103A1.
It's starting to sound like the hunt for Hoffa's body.
We know it's real, we have records, just no body.

See ya in the funnies.............
165thspc
#521
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 07, 2014 - 03:31 AM UTC
Nice to seee some built up photos of this AFV. It appears to finish out nicely.

It would definately be on my "must have" list but with all these errors it gives me strong reservations.

It definately hads the LOOK of a M103 but it just does not stand up to a close examination.
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 07, 2014 - 05:09 AM UTC
Hey Michael,

It did finish out pretty good. The only major deal for being an out of the box build was the exhaust on the rear deck as was stated earlier in the blog.

See ya in the funnies...............
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 10, 2014 - 05:47 PM UTC
Hey gang,

Just pulled the paint stash out of storage along with some older kit builds I had going. Taking inventory of paints, let's hope their still good.

Stay tuned.

See ya in the funnies.................
Delta42
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Monday, August 11, 2014 - 09:38 AM UTC
Brian and Pawel,

I spent the morning with Len Dyer at the Armor and Cavalry Museum Restoration area at Ft. Benning. There is an M103A1 and an M103A2 at that facility. Plus according to Len, he is expecting another M103A1 within the next few months. So they will have two A1s.

I actually pulled the tarp off of the A1 and took some pictures. It's not in great shape, but it is an A1.

Dave
BigfootV
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Monday, August 11, 2014 - 03:00 PM UTC
Hello Dave,

What luck! Guess my going to get a Lotto ticket now!

I had placed a call into Len Dryer on Friday, but did not get a reply back. I'm glad you got take photo's and I'm curious to see them now.

Keep us posted Dave.

Many thanks.

See ya in the funnies...................
Delta42
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 12:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I had placed a call into Len Dryer on Friday, but did not get a reply back.


Brian...Call Len again. They are only there Mon - Thur. That's why you could not get him on Friday.

He is very busy right now helping to prepare some static vehicles for display at the future site on the museum there on Benning.

I will post the few pictures I took later today.

Dave
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 12:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Brian and Pawel,

I spent the morning with Len Dyer at the Armor and Cavalry Museum Restoration area at Ft. Benning. There is an M103A1 and an M103A2 at that facility. Plus according to Len, he is expecting another M103A1 within the next few months. So they will have two A1s.

I actually pulled the tarp off of the A1 and took some pictures. It's not in great shape, but it is an A1.

Dave

Very interesting! I wonder where they kept the tank all the time that there seem to be no photos of it posted anywhere on the web... I just hope the one you saw was not this one from Ft. Benning: http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j385/enclave12/m1031_zpsd8b2afd5.jpg, as this is a M103, not M103A1.
Delta42
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 12:58 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Very interesting! I wonder where they kept the tank all the time that there seem to be no photos of it posted anywhere on the web... I just hope the one you saw was not this one from Ft. Benning: http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j385/enclave12/m1031_zpsd8b2afd5.jpg, as this is a M103, not M103A1.


Hey Pawel,

No, the A1 is sitting next to the M103 (pictured) It seems this A1 was recovered from a range.

Dave
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 01:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text

No, the A1 is sitting next to the M103 (pictured) It seems this A1 was recovered from a range.

Dave


That could explain why it was out of reach for photographers.
Delta42
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 27, 2002
KitMaker: 616 posts
Armorama: 511 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 01:42 AM UTC
Okay, here are the pictures I got of the A1 at Benning yesterday. I was mainly taking pictures of the rear, since that is where the difference is as opposed to the A2.





















Here are some side shots of the vehicle.





and from the front.



Dave
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 02:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Here are some side shots of the vehicle.

Are you _sure_ that's an A1? My eyes aren't the greatest, but I can't see the bulge on the front right roof corner of the turret for the A1's new gunner's sight.

Without that, it's a plain 103.

Might even be a T43 if it's the same vehicle that was at Aberdeen. (That fading crap colour paint reminds me of the stuff they slopped all over the APG vehicles out in the road median, which is where the T43 was when I took photos of it years ago.)

Paul
 _GOTOTOP